On 7-Dec-05, at 2:21 PM, saul ostrow wrote:
But perhaps what is most interesting especially concerning
Seattle is the mix-- these demonstrations brought together the
spectrum of left to right -- consequently, when we speak of activism
we must speak equally of this span and not think that the content and
form of resistance de facto infers something progressive or even
desirable --
Saul Ostrow
Very true.
And what of unintentional resistances, which may be the most potent
forms of all? As when they emerge organically from an 'other' culture,
especially newly minted communities (such as networked digitalists)
using new tools and speaking new languages, generating (at times, such
as now) more efficient systems of exchange and ultimately behaviours
and values that destabilize orthodoxies and hegemonies simply by
becoming themselves...
For a generation of plugged-in young people the belief that copying is
not stealing is a given not a political position. Mash-ups are pop
music not contraband. Negativland has suddenly won,
unexpectedly borne to victory by the noodling of teenage programmers,
along with the infrastructural enabling of the telecom and cable
industries and of course the US military, generous forefathers of our
little chat, and likely spies of it as well. For a generation of kids
the resistance to copyright is as natural as breathing, and appears to
be just the tip of the iceberg. (Let's say gaming ends up being
only as influential as the global film industry –
which it is now larger than – has been!) It is their generational
wave that we will ride whether we surf or not, and that may be
destined – unless we get lucky or busy, or both – to crash against
some very fierce rocks. For some pioneers, as we know, it already has.
(I believe Trebor made reference to the seminal Critical Art Ensemble
writings of a decade or so ago in a previous post.
www.caedefensefund.org)
Which brings us to your point Saul, or a version of it anyway, as
in… is this a friendly beast or a dangerous one? Or, as I have asked
myself, am I trying to start a war or stop one? Scary words to utter
in these times I might add, but a question that I think bears uttering
as we confront the uncertain future. Personally I have come to the
conclusion that bridges are what we need, bridges between generations,
between cultures, between economies. So that each side has meaningful
stories it can tell about the other. But the persuasive and potent
march of techne is crossing wires. And as we begin to
lose more elders and gain more children the balance of power between
technological classes will soon shift dramatically. Which may not be
an easy series of transitions for any of us.
Above all other factors the baby boom caused the social revolution of
the 60s. The demographic factor trumped everything. Now we are part of
a technologically-defined generation that is expanding upward,
downward and horizontally at an extreme pace of assimilation. Already
a billion people are talking to each other online, in increasingly
complex and previously unknown open-ended forms, moving more and more
of their functions and identity into a massive real-time network, like
bugs.
From an evolutionary perspective this is big news.
Politically, it appears to be an active invitation to anarchy or
tyranny.
Which relates perhaps to the question of activism, of how to live a
radical vision of life in this networked age, and even offers a kind
of answer. Suggesting that perhaps connecting people is what this
(human life, the internet, anarchy, resistance to injustice) is all
about. And that as visionaries, artists and engineers of
communion/community/communication we can do nothing more potent than
use these new networking tools as creatively as possible to connect
people. Or, as you put it so well, Trebor, to "support extreme
sharing networks wherever you find them."
Means not ends is my motto. (today)
Peace
John Sobol
--
www.johnsobol.com
bluesology • printopolis • digitopia